Ben-DutkaNot everyone is enamored with PlayStation Now but clearly, the numbers are painting a rosier picture.
Plus, Sony likes how the streaming service can give older franchises renewed life. Now's senior director, Jack Buser, tells the [a]list daily that the cloud-based rental service adds a "long tail" this industry so desperately needs:
"This…speaks to the lifecycle of the game in our industry. In the games industry, we've been very focused on the first few months after a game is released. Unlike our friends in the movie and music industries, there wasn't as much of a long tail for the game industry. I think PlayStation Now has an extremely interesting role to play as the lifecycle of the game industry matures."
Buser added that this gives publishers the chance to rejuvenate IPs and generate some extra revenue. He says it gets gamers talking about older titles long after the game launched, which was "previously very difficult to do in this industry." With over 300 PS3 games currently available on Now and more to come, it looks like the service is pushing forward, and the engagement numbers are solid. Added Buser:
"If you look at some of the engagement metrics recently on the service, you can see that users are highly engaged. Year over year, we've seen a 300 percent increase in PS Now users – this is largely due to the subscription being so compelling. If you look at usage per week, average usage is going to be about 4 hours, which is a very high engagement metric. If you look at it per session, we're looking at about 45 minutes a session, and for popular games over an hour."
Buser says this is indicative of people coming in, playing for a long time, and even coming back multiple times per week. So, even if you aren't using this service, obviously a lot of people are, and it's true that games tend to disappear all to quickly in this industry. Perhaps Now will be more important than we think…
"So, even if you aren't using this service, obviously a lot of people are, and it's true that games tend to disappear all to quickly in this industry."
I could care less about Now but that's the second executive I've read today — the other being Ubisoft's CEO — speaking about the importance of keeping older titles in circulation longer. This industry — the console side of it, anyway — has had a huge problem with turnover, an utter lack of interest in preserving even the very recent past. Ubisoft's CEO was talking about the Xbox One's BC as a great opportunity for them to get more sales out of older games, and I was thrilled to see those comments. The sooner corporations see the monetary gains to be had by giving gamers easy access to older the games, the sooner we'll get to a point where older games aren't all but erased from history.
Hmmm, rent a game for a week for $7, or buy it on Steam for $5 and own it forever?
Rent a game you probably already own but can't play.
Sounds awesome, Frosty.
not everythings on steam
The games that aren't on Steam can be found for cheap on Ebay 🙂
PS Now imo is not good value for money for me. I don't believe Sony when they said they can't get the PS4 backwards compatible. That would mess with their strategy for double dipping into gamers pockets.
Last edited by frostface on 7/10/2015 12:06:26 PM
Since Sony owns the proprietary hardware they created for the PS2 and PS3 (obvs), the idea that they can't achieve backwards compatibility is laughable. They don't face nearly as many obstacles as MS does since MS used different third party hardware suppliers for each console.
Sony paid 380 million for Gaikai. They're not going to bother with backwards compatibility because they want a return on that investment.
I get why they do it. It makes sense. I don't hold that against them.
That said, it doesn't interest me, so I won't be paying for it.
How easy would B/C be? Doesn't the ps4 have completely different architecture?
Even if it is relatively easy it would no doubt make the ps4 more expensive which is the biggest reason Sony won't do it, they aren't going to repeat their mistake of the $600 ps3. And finally, I think most people who would want B/C are "hardcore" gamers who most likely already own the previous consoles.
So as much as some of us would like it (and I would), it just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint.
Matt, MS also said there was no way the XBONE could do backwards compatibility at the beginning. But they magically managed it when sales weren't doing so well. And all it took was a firmware update.
Except the 360 was built on a fairly simple architecture unlike the PS3 which was completely new for the industry there is already some extremely rough emulation of smaller 360 titles being done and that's through brute force emulation while Microsoft are the ones who designed both consoles their early statement was a BS one however Sony's most likely is not.
However what pisses me off and what Sony COULD be doing is allow us to play Now available titles for free long as we own the original PS3 disk and the PS4 reads to confirm the disk when we start the game up through Now.
Also I really have no idea why they removed PS1 emulation that is simple as hell even Cell Phones can do it, sure many people may no longer own PS1 games but I still occasionally popped in titles like Legend of Dragoon and Hydro Thunder for some nostalgic fun on the PS3.
Last edited by Shauneepeak on 7/10/2015 5:35:54 PM
I'm not going to rent any games because I barely have the time to play them.
For those gamers that play games endlessly and beat the game in 2-7 days then it makes sense.
LoL year over year?
The year over year increase was that of going from a terrible pricing rental model to a subscription model option (everyone wanted from the start).
Let's see how the year over year looks when two years of the subcription model has been active. In light of this, 300% basically means they went from abysmal to less abysmal. As in idk 5K users to 15K users.
As for PS now's expansion into the mainstream? Ha. See PSTV.
The hundreds of millions Sony spent on this service would've been better served with some more PS4 exclusives.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 7/10/2015 3:17:39 PM
Exactly what I was thinking.
Who said this would never ever be a success of any kind? Michael Pachter!
It's whatever old game you want to play at your fingertips. Hard to put a price on that, a few bucks for instant gratification and nostalgia? Here's your sign.
I understand the importance of Now from a business perspective, but I have no interest in subscribing to it. Though I do get slightly annoyed when games that never got a digital release or are no longer on PSN get added to it…
And as much as I would love for the PS4 to be backwards compatible, I'm not aching for it. Pushing the second HDMI input button on my receiver's remote isn't too much trouble.
Did Sony buy you off BEn? Are you trying to get some brownie points?
No one wants PS Now. No one. You and Sony and kiss each other's ass all day long, but this will never last, no matter how hard Sony pushes this.
Sony is doing everything they can to force us to play PS Now. It is why they refused to let us play most of the older PS games on the ps4. But hey! FOr only so much a month and so much an hour you can play them! I have a feeling this is going to bite them in the ass very hard.
Screw you Sony.
maybe but the business needs to be majorly over hauled cos its still to over priced, like people said it needs to be the netflix of gaming and the same sort of pricing model to work well.
happy gaming
Damn, I really wish they kept those millions back in their pocket.
Like others have said, this is just the prioritization of trying to get more double-dipping out of ps users.
They could have done backwards compatibility, but that would be a one time cost rather than gouging for games you probably already own or could buy cheaply on ebay.
I know I'll never be using it.
There are a lot of people who have a ps4 who didn't have a ps3. This service is much more valuable for them. I'm not one of them but I can see Sony's justification for the service. I do wish they would at least allow access to games I own that are in psn through PlayStation now for no additional cost our maybe even an extra five or ten bucks a year on my plus subscription so that i could just use one console.
Last edited by trumpetmon65 on 7/11/2015 11:35:14 PM
$180 a year for 300 games? Not such a good deaL. Break it down. $400 for a PS4. $50 a year for Plus. Now $180 a year to play older games. $630 for one year. $230 each additional year. Figure 5 year life expectancy before PS5 comes around. That's an additional $920 for the next 4 years) Then another $400 for the PS5. Plus the usual $230 for Plus and Now (assuming PS4 games get added, and PS1-3 as well). Then $920 a year for 4 more years til PS6. That's $1550 per console life cycle. Not including new PS 4/5/6 games. Each about $60 (ignoring deluxe, collector, limited editions). Even generously assuming 1 new game a month, that's $780 a year. So, $1410 for one year. $7050 for 5 years.
$7050 at least for 5 years of PS4 games, older PS games, and Plus (needed for multiplaying PS4 games). Does this still look like such a good deal?
Last edited by Ather on 7/12/2015 7:24:04 PM
How easy would B/C be? Doesn't the ps4 have completely different architecture?
Even if it is relatively easy it would no doubt make the ps4 more expensive which is the biggest reason Sony won't do it, they aren't going to repeat their mistake of the $600 ps3. And finally, I think most people who would want B/C are "hardcore" gamers who most likely already own the previous consoles.
So as much as some of us would like it (and I would), it just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint.
PS Now imo is not good value for money for me. I don't believe Sony when they said they can't get the PS4 backwards compatible. That would mess with their strategy for double dipping into gamers pockets.
Last edited by frostface on 7/10/2015 12:06:26 PM
Since Sony owns the proprietary hardware they created for the PS2 and PS3 (obvs), the idea that they can't achieve backwards compatibility is laughable. They don't face nearly as many obstacles as MS does since MS used different third party hardware suppliers for each console.
Sony paid 380 million for Gaikai. They're not going to bother with backwards compatibility because they want a return on that investment.
The games that aren't on Steam can be found for cheap on Ebay 🙂
Hmmm, rent a game for a week for $7, or buy it on Steam for $5 and own it forever?
not everythings on steam
Sounds awesome, Frosty.
Did Sony buy you off BEn? Are you trying to get some brownie points?
No one wants PS Now. No one. You and Sony and kiss each other's ass all day long, but this will never last, no matter how hard Sony pushes this.
Sony is doing everything they can to force us to play PS Now. It is why they refused to let us play most of the older PS games on the ps4. But hey! FOr only so much a month and so much an hour you can play them! I have a feeling this is going to bite them in the ass very hard.
Screw you Sony.
I understand the importance of Now from a business perspective, but I have no interest in subscribing to it. Though I do get slightly annoyed when games that never got a digital release or are no longer on PSN get added to it…
And as much as I would love for the PS4 to be backwards compatible, I'm not aching for it. Pushing the second HDMI input button on my receiver's remote isn't too much trouble.
I'm not going to rent any games because I barely have the time to play them.
For those gamers that play games endlessly and beat the game in 2-7 days then it makes sense.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Matt, MS also said there was no way the XBONE could do backwards compatibility at the beginning. But they magically managed it when sales weren't doing so well. And all it took was a firmware update.
maybe but the business needs to be majorly over hauled cos its still to over priced, like people said it needs to be the netflix of gaming and the same sort of pricing model to work well.
happy gaming
Like others have said, this is just the prioritization of trying to get more double-dipping out of ps users.
They could have done backwards compatibility, but that would be a one time cost rather than gouging for games you probably already own or could buy cheaply on ebay.
I know I'll never be using it.
Except the 360 was built on a fairly simple architecture unlike the PS3 which was completely new for the industry there is already some extremely rough emulation of smaller 360 titles being done and that's through brute force emulation while Microsoft are the ones who designed both consoles their early statement was a BS one however Sony's most likely is not.
However what pisses me off and what Sony COULD be doing is allow us to play Now available titles for free long as we own the original PS3 disk and the PS4 reads to confirm the disk when we start the game up through Now.
Also I really have no idea why they removed PS1 emulation that is simple as hell even Cell Phones can do it, sure many people may no longer own PS1 games but I still occasionally popped in titles like Legend of Dragoon and Hydro Thunder for some nostalgic fun on the PS3.
Last edited by Shauneepeak on 7/10/2015 5:35:54 PM
LoL year over year?
The year over year increase was that of going from a terrible pricing rental model to a subscription model option (everyone wanted from the start).
Let's see how the year over year looks when two years of the subcription model has been active. In light of this, 300% basically means they went from abysmal to less abysmal. As in idk 5K users to 15K users.
As for PS now's expansion into the mainstream? Ha. See PSTV.
The hundreds of millions Sony spent on this service would've been better served with some more PS4 exclusives.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 7/10/2015 3:17:39 PM
Who said this would never ever be a success of any kind? Michael Pachter!
It's whatever old game you want to play at your fingertips. Hard to put a price on that, a few bucks for instant gratification and nostalgia? Here's your sign.
I get why they do it. It makes sense. I don't hold that against them.
That said, it doesn't interest me, so I won't be paying for it.
Damn, I really wish they kept those millions back in their pocket.
"So, even if you aren't using this service, obviously a lot of people are, and it's true that games tend to disappear all to quickly in this industry."
I could care less about Now but that's the second executive I've read today — the other being Ubisoft's CEO — speaking about the importance of keeping older titles in circulation longer. This industry — the console side of it, anyway — has had a huge problem with turnover, an utter lack of interest in preserving even the very recent past. Ubisoft's CEO was talking about the Xbox One's BC as a great opportunity for them to get more sales out of older games, and I was thrilled to see those comments. The sooner corporations see the monetary gains to be had by giving gamers easy access to older the games, the sooner we'll get to a point where older games aren't all but erased from history.
$180 a year for 300 games? Not such a good deaL. Break it down. $400 for a PS4. $50 a year for Plus. Now $180 a year to play older games. $630 for one year. $230 each additional year. Figure 5 year life expectancy before PS5 comes around. That's an additional $920 for the next 4 years) Then another $400 for the PS5. Plus the usual $230 for Plus and Now (assuming PS4 games get added, and PS1-3 as well). Then $920 a year for 4 more years til PS6. That's $1550 per console life cycle. Not including new PS 4/5/6 games. Each about $60 (ignoring deluxe, collector, limited editions). Even generously assuming 1 new game a month, that's $780 a year. So, $1410 for one year. $7050 for 5 years.
$7050 at least for 5 years of PS4 games, older PS games, and Plus (needed for multiplaying PS4 games). Does this still look like such a good deal?
Last edited by Ather on 7/12/2015 7:24:04 PM
There are a lot of people who have a ps4 who didn't have a ps3. This service is much more valuable for them. I'm not one of them but I can see Sony's justification for the service. I do wish they would at least allow access to games I own that are in psn through PlayStation now for no additional cost our maybe even an extra five or ten bucks a year on my plus subscription so that i could just use one console.
Last edited by trumpetmon65 on 7/11/2015 11:35:14 PM
Rent a game you probably already own but can't play.